Creation education

[juliod]

Should there be a law prohibiting the teaching of creationism to children?

Obviously, the usual arguement against this is based on religious freedom. And I have always strongly supported the freedom of all people to believe what they want.

But recently I have been having trouble with this argument. Mainly it is because religious people, as a whole, do not equally support freedom for others, including we atheists. They are quite happy to force the teaching of religious doctrine onto other people's children.

Then there is the issue of protecting children from harm. There are two parts to this. One is that allowing children to be taught things that are demonstrably false is harmful. The other is that by teaching children an anti-science doctrine you cripple them in the modern high-tech job market, another form of harm.

This applies to the nation too. It is clear today that first-world countries like the US depend on technology jobs to maintain their positions. We are harming ourselves by allowing children to be taught superstition, mysticism, or other forms of irrationalism.

DanZ

[MagusYanam]

Sorry, none of those wars meet my criteria for a war that must be fought because all other options have been exhausted. Both Gulf Wars were politically / economically motivated (meaning: oil or political interests were at stake in that region), and so fall so far short of the mark of necessity as to be ridiculous.

Vietnam was also a useless war, fought mostly over ideological terms. We couldn't see it for what it was - a war of 'national liberation', not a war by 'communism'. This may have been because of our reigning domino theory, but in any case, it was certainly not a war of necessity even by the standards of that day and age.

Korea is a little more iffy. South Korea was acting in self-defence against Kim Il-Sung, true, but I think the UN could still have managed a non-violent compromise that would have satisfied both sides.

[LillSnopp]

Sorry, none of those wars meet my criteria for a war that must be fought because all other options have been exhausted. Both Gulf Wars were politically / economically motivated (meaning: oil or political interests were at stake in that region), and so fall so far short of the mark of necessity as to be ridiculous.

Vietnam was also a useless war, fought mostly over ideological terms. We couldn't see it for what it was - a war of 'national liberation', not a war by 'communism'. This may have been because of our reigning domino theory, but in any case, it was certainly not a war of necessity even by the standards of that day and age.

Korea is a little more iffy. South Korea was acting in self-defence against Kim Il-Sung, true, but I think the UN could still have managed a non-violent compromise that would have satisfied both sides.

Thank you for confirming my Point. So which war is it then that makes it al goodie goodie? That these whimpy Europeans refuse to accept? (the lazy pacifist as you call em). uh?

[MagusYanam]

Thank you for confirming my Point. So which war is it then that makes it al goodie goodie?

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I am a pacifist; I used to be a Mennonite. I think the only wars in American history which have some justification (not justifiability - there is a difference) are the Civil War and World War II. (As I'm not really an expert on European history, I don't have enough insight on European wars to make good judgment calls.)

That these whimpy Europeans refuse to accept? (the lazy pacifist as you call em).

I have never said the Europeans were wimpy or lazy - I should be thoroughly ashamed of myself if ever I did. I actually think many Europeans tend to be too militaristic in their outlook - like Britain's Labour Party. I'm not a Blair fan.

[LillSnopp]

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I am a pacifist; I used to be a Mennonite. I think the only wars in American history which have some justification (not justifiability - there is a difference) are the Civil War and World War II. (As I'm not really an expert on European history, I don't have enough insight on European wars to make good judgment calls.)

I was referring to the earlier poster, Sorry for the confusion

Well, WW I and II is pretty "justified" when it Comes to the Wars European Nations have been part of. The ones Earlier (That would be European Wars) where more or less part of the times when Nations expanded and sought constant power and territory. When Vasa took over Sweden, We became a great Power, and we where actually the ones responsible for the (almost) extermination of the germans (we reduced there population from 18 million to 4 million during the 30 years war). None of does wars could be called "justified" using the contemporary definition.

I have never said the Europeans were wimpy or lazy - I should be thoroughly ashamed of myself if ever I did. I actually think many Europeans tend to be too militaristic in their outlook - like Britain's Labour Party. I'm not a Blair fan.

Sorry, was referring to earlier poster
No one is a Blair fan...

Personally, i like the idéa of the EU Military force,Which would not only be Huge (There is 450 million people in todays EU), but extremely advanced when it comes to technology and equipment (JAS-39 Gripen, Rafale, EuroFighter etcetera). At the same time, this force compared to the U.S one, would (is) actually be skilled (the worst dangers for British, French or German troops that help out in any American "peace keeping is that they most likely willl be shot in the back by there American "allies").

[USIncognito]

Not to go off tangent, but as the son of a career military man, and a former member of the U.S. armed forces himself, I must comment.

Personally, i like the idéa of the EU Military force,Which would not only be Huge (There is 450 million people in todays EU), but extremely advanced when it comes to technology and equipment (JAS-39 Gripen, Rafale, EuroFighter etcetera).

Me too, assuming the EU, or for that matter, individual member nations would pony up the money to pay for this "huge" mililtary. Western European nations have had 60 years of U.S./U.K. and Canadian cantonment (Sweden and Switzerland being notable exceptions) to avoid spending the portions of their individual nationa budgets to support a "huge" military. Former Warsaw Pact nations that have/might join an EU military are armed primarily with Soviet era technology and would require huge expenditures to bring their militaries up to 21st century warfighting capability.

At the same time, this force compared to the U.S one, would (is) actually be skilled (the worst dangers for British, French or German troops that help out in any American "peace keeping is that they most likely willl be shot in the back by there American "allies").

I'd really like to see actual statistics to back the up rather than "common knowledge" and "street wisdom." I'm not saying there haven't been cross-national friendly fire incidents, the the horrible irony is that the majority of them have been between U.S. units and Canadian and British forces - which, with our shared English language seems inconceivable.

Oh, and for the record, I think the Iraq war was folly when the chickenhawks pushed it, folly in the amount of capital it will cost us (both fiscal and political) verses the "safety and stability" it will offer us, and folly in the expectation that a democratic Iraq will become a stable, Western democracy in light of the ethnic and religious division in the country (and the inability of the current elected government to form an actual governing body bears this out).

I think we've messed up by not completing the mission in Afghanistan, I think Iraq was an exercise in folly, and I think an EU force could be a formidable ally, but I cannot let unwarrented dispariagement of the U.S. military go rebutted.

[LillSnopp]

I'd really like to see actual statistics

During the Gulf War friendly fire accounted for 24 percent.

Thats common knowledge, which you can look up if you dont believe me.

And lets take the Gulf II, bombing of several Hospitals, infrastructures such as water supply and electricity (you call them accidents i think) not to mention the Huge amount of Woman and Children terminated by U.S troops. But i guess its "ok" to make sure they dont invade your country (which for that matter, they will most likely have as big chance to find on a map, as the average americans would, haha, no pun intended).

This is way off topic, we can take it private if you wish.

[USIncognito]

I'd really like to see actual statistics

During the Gulf War friendly fire accounted for 24 percent.

Thats common knowledge, which you can look up if you dont believe me.

Please don't assign me homework. If you're going to make a claim, you should be able to back it up if asked to do so. But to my best recollection, most of the friendly fire casualties were American on American incidents, not American on Coalition.

And lets take the Gulf II, bombing of several Hospitals, infrastructures such as water supply and electricity (you call them accidents i think) not to mention the Huge amount of Woman and Children terminated by U.S troops. But i guess its "ok" to make sure they dont invade your country (which for that matter, they will most likely have as big chance to find on a map, as the average americans would, haha, no pun intended).

I'm aware of the terrible incidents where infrastructure or indeed resturaunts and houses (re: the B-52 strike to try and get Saddam), but again, I must request a link showing where U.S. troops are purposefully targeting and murdering Iraqi women and children as you appear to be claiming. Civilians in war zones will be killed. Tens of thousands died during the seige of Stalingrad. Raids on London and Tokyo killed thousands. Nearly 80,000 were immolated in the firestorm that consumed Dresden and Hamburg.

But none of those people were "terminated," they had the ill fortune of being in a civilian in a war zone.

I also find it unfortunate (and ironic) that you feel the need to appeal to the lowest common denominator and raise the "ignorant American" stereotype. I personally can find Tuvalu, Mauritious, San Moreno and Guyana on a map blindfolded. I've lived in Iran and Germany and been to Sweden. American geographic knowledge borders on pathetic in general, but if you're responding to me, don't raise that spectre since I do know something about the world beyond my own borders.

[AlAyeti]

A question. Which European country was not established with the blood of the pre-inhabitants being spilled?

America has only a little over two-hundred years of violence to define itself. Wasn't Europe built by one civilization dominating another?

Am I mistaken?

[LillSnopp]

I must request a link showing where U.S. troops are purposefully targeting and murdering Iraqi women and children as you appear to be claiming.

They are not killing them because of purpose, but because of lack of knowledge, intelligence, skill and other. That was my point: The U.S Army is incompetent. At the same time, they claim to be skilled and competent.

[LillSnopp]

A question. Which European country was not established with the blood of the pre-inhabitants being spilled?

I dont really understand the question, perhaps if you define it better. Iceland for example has had no wars. How do you mean ?

America has only a little over two-hundred years of violence to define itself. Wasn't Europe built by one civilization dominating another?

Indeed, and Europe also learned and evolved, To bad the United States do not take after knowledge and experience, eh?